2014 February LSAT Morning Cometh

I’m here to give you a rundown of the impressions people had, and point you in the right direction for what’s next.

The February LSAT Was Weird

Most people I’ve talked to think the February LSAT was weird. It wasn’t scoring the writing sample weird, but weird enough. The general consensus on the Internet, including on our very own LSAT blog, seems to be the same.

In particular, a rare ordering game seems to have made an appearance. Weird, but in the last few years the trend has been to include one brutal game among three much easier games.

People are predicting a big number for the February LSAT’s “curve.” An LSAT’s “curve” is the number of questions you could have missed to score a 170.

The folks over at the Top Law Schools Forum (TLS) are guessing it’ll fall between -12 and -14:

As a community, TLS tends to be a bit conservative – and not totally free of trolls – when it comes to their estimates. A curve of -13/-14 is a strong possibility.

What’s Next?

Some of you may be thinking about canceling your February LSAT score. Usually, this is not a good idea unless you had some clear disaster (maybe you passed out during or messed up your bubbling). If you only have a vague “bad feeling,” then you should know that people have earned 180 LSAT scores after leaving with a “bad feeling.” We’ve got you covered if you want more info on canceling your LSAT score.

If you do cancel your February LSAT score, you will have a long time until the June LSAT to work on your weaknesses. So, take a week off, and then get right back to studying. You can make a huge jump in your LSAT score if you spend this time practicing correctly.

Waiting For Your February LSAT Score

The LSAC says you’ll get your February LSAT scores on March 5. They love surprising people by releasing the scores a few days early, so I’m predicting that you’ll have your February LSAT scores on March 3.

In the mean time, spend your time wisely. Talk to your professors and TAs about recommendation letters. Write a few personal statement drafts.

23 Responses

Yeah… The section 3 LG (experimental) was super easy. The section 5 LG (the real one) was not super easy. The hard game everyone is talking about wasn’t that hard, it was the the three other games that were very difficult and took more time to complete than usual, so it didn’t give people as much time to complete the final game. I personally thought the 2nd and 3rd game in section 5 were the most difficult and time consuming and there wasn’t any easy games in that section.

Yeah I can totally see how an LG like that would really throw people off. If you got used to finishing the 3rd game with ~15 minutes left for a brutal 4th, it must have felt really strange to lose a bunch of time on the 2nd and 3rd. I know I wouldn’t be happy.

I have taken over 30 PTs and sat for the LSAT 3 times and I have never encountered an exam like this February test. Games had become one of my best sections with consistently between 1-3 wrong. The second and third games were tough and time consuming and by the time the proctor called 5 min I was just starting to read the rules for the last game. Ended up guessing randomly with same letter all the way down for the whole last game.

LR is my best and I thought there were some really tough questions throughout both sections. RC was also pretty difficult

lets hope for a generous curve. at least Im done with the LSAT forever

I think for LG you can really trust people’s judgement on the difficulty right after the test. It’s all formal logic. So, when you’re having to guess, or it’s not going your way it’s pretty obvious, as opposed to RC, or LR where you can convince yourself that you’re not having a rough go of it (I know I have before haha).

I think part of the reason you’re see so many predicting a -12 curve on TLS – which is scary, considering how tough a lot of people think the February LSAT was – is that there’s an idea there that the 170 “curve” gets determined by toughness in sections other than LG, since it’s been relatively easier in the recent past to get all the LG questions right.

I’m not so sure about that. The more I read the impressions people had, the more I think you guys are in for a big number.

That test was such a blur for me. I finished all of the sections and all of the games, but I don’t remember any of the games (except for the last one). So now I’m second guessing myself and wondering if I actually reasoned through anything. Does anyone else have this problem?

Honestly, after reading countless responses to the test on TLS’s Feb Waiters board, taking numerous PTs through Kaplain including no less than 30 timed lg sections, there seems to be no way that the curve for this exam will be anything less than a -13.

1) The RC section was easy-moderate with a typical mix of passage content. I was actually thrilled with it as I didn’t have any issues whatsoever in completing each passage while still being able to look back in them to confirm my choices.

2) LG1 (experimental) was a euphoric romp that I am actually glad showed up when it did because it removed all possible jitters and gave me a ton of momentum.

3) LR1 was typical of the easier section of the two and remember going into the break feeling as though a 180 were a real possibility.

— At this point, this exam did not deviate at all from the June 2007 -8 PT.

4) LR2 was more difficult than most LR sections, if only because a string of three consecutive questions in the last 1/4th of the section were of the Parallel Reasoning ilk. I am glad I had planned ahead for a situation like that and skipped over them to the next assumption/weaken/strengthen/MP ect question because I remember safely finishing the rest and scrambling on those three….
However, working through the section in a linear manner would have produced significant time issues on the final 5 or so questions, none of which were more difficult than three stars and probably resulted in a ton of unforced errors on what would otherwise have been easy points. As a result, this section was more difficult and I think/hope the curve takes that into account.

5) LG is undoubtedly the reason why this exam will get a curve from -12 to -14, because none of the games were simple ordering, distribution or grouping games. They all had multiple elements, and the circle question (while fair) was incredibly atypical. Overall, I usually breeze through LG, but this one was exceptionally difficult, and in the end, while I don’t think I did too poorly, I missed the final two questions in the section undoubtedly while possibly making a couple more unforced errors throughout due to the lack of front-end deduction possibilities the games afforded.

Overall though, I think I did an awesome job. I was shooting for 168-172 and I am incredibly confidant that I hit that mark….

The fact that the last LR and LG, which for me came during the final two sections, were by far the two most difficult sections of the test and thus, resulted in the most back-end stress left a lot of people with a pessimistic parting shot of this test and causing them to feel as though they performed worse than they actually did.

Still though, I would love a -14, and I think there are plenty of reasons to believe that we will get a great curve!

All the same. One of the sections is experimental, meaning it doesn’t count toward our score and they are the only sections that vary from form to form….. In other words, only you had 2LRs graded, 1LG and 1RC….. You 3rd LR (not the hardest one mind you), was experimental.

You make a good point that the experimental section could conceivably effect your score depending on its nature (for example, if I had a really really hard experimental RC at the beginning of the test, I would get really discouraged and lose momentum)…. But LSAC doesn’t acknowledge that.

In short, your curve will be the same as that of the rest of the February LSAT takers…. Which, I think, will be a good thing!